作者：Tyler Wilde & Evan Lahti

在本周的辩论中，Tyler是左派，再次与Evan就现代游戏是否该保留传统boss战斗而进行交锋。游戏是否应该保留传统boss战斗以实现街机式的体验？是否存在boss战斗与现代游戏理念并存的基础呢？

辩论

face_off_boss(from pcgamer)

Tyler：为什么游戏不可以使用经过检验的可靠设计模版？这里打个比方：你花了一个学期上课，面临期末考的终极挑战。考试很难，你可能就得重考多次才能通过，但这对你的下一轮挑战却颇具意义。如果我只是在出勤率上达票了，我的学历可能就不过是一张白纸。

Evan：我认为将boss战斗与学校考试相提并论，并不是个妥当的比喻。

Tyler：我知道，但boss和考试性质是一样的。我也并不是特别偏爱这种比喻，但你只是打算批评我这种比喻吗？

Evan：那么你的意思是，如果没有一个必要的测试来划分玩家的进程，游戏如果不告诉玩家“你赢了！”或者“你闯入了下一关！”那就没有意义了？是吗？

Tyler：我并不是说游戏需要boss战斗才能创造富有意义的进程，但是旧式游戏结构如果使用得当仍然很管用。boss占据了重要部分——如果它们并不是少量使用的奖励，那么迟早会令玩家厌倦。它们可以是疯狂、庞大、怪异的东西。它们可以一开始看似无法对付，但当你打倒一个时，你就是英雄。你就是《虎胆龙威》中的Bruce Willis。

Evan：我将boss视为一种过时的东西。它们是披着敌手外衣的懒惰障碍设置，我认为设计师通常是出于方便或传统，而不是因为它们最棒或者是构造游戏的最佳创新方式而使用boss。有许多现代游戏以令人感觉完全脱节的方法使用bos——例如《生化奇兵》中可怜的终极boss，就是这个时代中最棒游戏之一的一个败笔。《生化奇兵》之父Ken Levin本人也承认了这一点。

Tyler：没错，对《生化奇兵》来说确实过于传统了。这本是个可以避免的错误——《德军司令部3D》如果没有设置与机甲希特勒的战斗，那就不会获得成功了。但《生化奇兵》呢？它应该忽略这个传统。这并不意味着设计传统都是糟糕或懒惰的。它们为我们提供了可借鉴的传统和宝贵经验。

在一项设计上迭代只会产生更好的设计版本——随着时间的发展，我们终会看到更多惊人的boss战斗，当然其中也会出现一些失败的例子。

Evan：但设计师并不只是迭代，他们还要反思。在多数时候，boss的植入方式仍然与一二十年前没有什么不同。你可以举个例子说说现代游戏的出色boss战斗吗？

Tyler：《暗黑之魂》系列。不好意思，这款游戏对你来说是不是太“古老”了一点？

Evan：实际上我很乐见你把它提出来了，因为《暗黑之魂》正符合我要说的观点。我认为其中与boss战斗的乐趣更多的是依赖难度而非有趣的设计。《暗黑之魂》告诉你“你很脆弱，所以你要去打那些比你HP和杀伤力更高的东西吧。所以就设计了Boss！”

我并不觉得这种设计一点吸引力都没有，但它很呆板无趣：模式识别，计时，与拥有大量攻击点数的敌人战斗，这并不是经检验而成功的惯例——它已经过犹不及了。这种模版诞生于80年代的2D街机游戏，并在90年代的主机游戏中普及。我们真的需要只是沿袭过去的技术传统的游戏系列吗，我们是不是需要来点新创意和新体验？

Tyler：两者都要兼顾！有时候我们想要一个组合。我们想要自己所要的。没错，那并不是一个很好的论据，为何不试试这个：boss战斗的最佳例子确实来自街机风格游戏，以及日系主机游戏系列，让“现代”PC导向的论点更为困难了，但即使是Valve也借鉴了集体设计经验，我认为《传送门》及《传送门2》就是相当现代的例子。

Evan：我喜欢这两款游戏的结局，但比起让我用鼠标和键盘进行操作，我更喜欢它叙事执行方式。Glados和Wheatley的编写内容都非常有趣，两款《传送门》游戏都不乏创新之处，其抒情的歌曲为你数个小时辛勤工作的大脑提供了放松。但作为一项活动，一项测试，我并不认为这两者的boss战斗很刺激。

如果击败《Portal 2》的结尾：

*当Wheatley向你扔炸弹时要站在一个管道之后。这会砸开极为明显的White Gel Tube。

*将一扇传送门放置于自己面前，把传送门放到一个没有面对Wheatley盾牌的表面。

*趁Wheatley目瞪口呆（因为它们如果没有一个“瘫痪”状态就不会成为boss了）的时候，恢复核心并走向他。

*重复这一操作。

这已经为你做了大量工作——你甚至不需要考虑在哪放置胶体，因为《传送门2》会反复教你如何操作。这是一个叙事成功案例，但如果判断boss的测试属性，我只能说这是个相当简单的考试。

Tyler：没错，boss战斗一般就是训练模式识别和重复技能。它们需要输赢二元状态，如果一击就中就有点太突兀了，所以你得逐渐将它们放倒。但《半条命2：第二章》呢？这并不是常规的基于模式的测试，这是一整个关卡。从概念上讲，它还是一个boss吗？

Evan：我最感兴趣的是鼓励设计师抛弃boss或“测试”或结局需要采用输赢二元状态，或者必须重复玩家已经了解的东西这一传统观念。我喜欢《求生之路》逐渐加强的事件，它让玩家能够同时输赢——你或者一名队友可能会死，但如果有一个人完成了最后一关，那大家就成功了。

我并不想要更多《人类革命》式的游戏。它实际上重启了我们现在已经确定的代理导向型游戏，将其还原成“把玩家同一个他们所打昏的人放在一个房间，然后开枪射击将其打死为止”。

Tyler：这次你也没错，但我并不认同这种说法。对，“开枪直到把他们打死为止”在这里很脱节（在此不应该以《人类革命》为例，因为其中的boss战斗设计很糟糕），但即便如此，我还是想面对坏蛋，有时候我真的只想赢得战斗。就是所谓的英雄旅程！挑战输赢二元论的观点可以站得住脚（就像在《求生之路》），但John McClane射杀坏人也仍然有存在的理由。

我不想错过这种对抗，因为我们对传统boss战斗太有经验了。没错，确实还有更好的方法处理这种对抗方式，这正是我想看到的试验。

Evan：英雄旅程正是我想让更多设计师偏离的轨道。不要让我们对boss的讨论偏题了，但我真的不想再成为人们的救星了。

《孤岛惊魂3》代表了设计师在boss设计上的最新尝试之一。这是一款开放世界游戏，拥有也许是去年最佳的坏蛋，但育碧让你与Vaas和其他坏蛋面对面的方法则是，将你抛入这些令人沮丧、线性、吸毒成瘾式的幻觉系列中。他们为什么要这么做？因为他们想让玩家延长与坏人的遭遇战，体验可让他们曲扭规则并射击敌人无数次的这一理想序列。

Tyler：你当然可以举出大量糟糕的boss战斗例子，但它们并不足以成为论据——至少《孤岛惊魂3》尝试令其boss对抗战斗有所不同，尽管没有成功。

至于你的第一个观点，没错，当我们偏离英雄旅程原型时，确实可以创造一些真正有趣的东西。但如果我只是《DayZ》中的一个人，在一个充斥僵尸的岛上，我该怎么做？但我们为什么不能二者兼顾呢？我们并不需要在拯救世界的同时，发现我们无法拯救世界之时，或者当最后的boss实际上是Jonathan Blow内心的情绪纠结时发生了什么情况。

Evan：我们好像正在接近一致意见了。我认为我们都对基于新理念的boss遭遇战或“困难考验”很感兴趣。我想我的部分批评源于西方游戏设计在过去10年、15年超越了日本游戏设计这一观念，而boss代表了被日本游戏大量采用的一个过时标志。

我对那些资金雄厚，由大量人才开发，依赖类似将你锁在一个房间，并抛给你一个超有耐力的敌人这种模版的游戏已经很厌倦了。

Tyler：你玩过《合金装备3：食蛇者》吗？我知道，这又是一个日本主机游戏例子，但我认为其结局是一个很棒的现代boss战斗——它是一场狙击战斗，你可能通过一击或非致命的一招就打赢的战斗。这是我们PC游戏所缺乏的boss战斗试验。我们并不需要将它们一杆子打死。

Evan：我是一个《合金装备》粉丝，所以这次不会反驳你的观点——它的结局也适用于《半条命2：第二章》——Konami围绕该角色创造了一个完整而精致的关卡，给他灌输了一些不可预期的行为，结果就是这个有趣的丛林追击行动并没有一个统一的解决方案。许多《合金装备》boss会依赖一些传统的模式识别设计，但它却是结合“日本难度”以及西方敏感性的最佳例子之一。Konami还有许多这种案例。

Tyler：没错，我们现在至少达成一个共识了。我们俩都不介意游戏采用这种大型对抗战斗，或者偶尔加点叙事元素，我们只是想要更为机智的方法。也就是说，我们并不想让设计师强行向非传统游戏植入传统boss战斗。我们希望他们设计有意义，并且可以让“躲避、射击，躲避、射击”富有趣味的体验，但它只适用于那些街机风格的游戏。当你将其强行植入《生化奇兵》或《杀出重围》这类游戏时，就会显得机械而呆板。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Face Off: Do boss battles have a place in modern games?

In this week’s Face Off debate, Tyler goes left, then right, then left again to dodge Evan’s precisely timed barrage of attacks against traditional boss fights in modern games. Are they an outdated trope which should be reserved for arcade-style experiences? Is there some common ground, where boss fights and modern ideas can coexist?

Read the debate below, add your argument in the comments, and jump to the next page for opinions from the community. Tyler, you have the floor:

The Debate

Tyler: Why shouldn’t games use a tried-and-true design template? Here’s an analogy: you spend a semester learning, then face the ultimate challenge in the final exam. It’s hard. You might have to repeat it again and again to pass, but it makes earning the right to advance to the next level meaningful. My degree would just be a piece of paper if I passed on attendance alone.

Evan: Thanks for comparing bosses to school exams, something universally disliked by mankind.

Tyler: I know, but see, what I’m saying is, because tests and bosses are- OK, fine. I guess I didn’t do myself any favors with that analogy. But are you just going to critique my rhetoric?

Evan: Let’s try this again, with less sarcasm on my part. So you’re saying that without a demanding test punctuating a player’s progression, being told “You won!” or “You advanced to the next area!” by a game isn’t as meaningful. Correct?

Tyler: I’m not saying games need boss fights to create meaningful progression, but the old-school structure still works where it’s used well. Bosses get the big set pieces—the explosions that would just be worn out if they weren’t a sparingly-used reward. They can be crazy, huge, monstrous things. They can seem insurmountable at first, and when you turn one to dust, you are the hero. You’re Bruce Willis at the end of Die Hard. Happy trails, Hans.

Evan: I see bosses as an antique trope. They’re a lazy roadblock-in-antagonist’s clothing, and I think designers generally use them out of convenience or tradition, and not because bosses are the best or most creative way of structuring a game. Plenty of modern games have used bosses in a way that feels completely out of place—BioShock’s pathetic end boss was one of the only stains on one of the best games of the era. Ken Levine has admitted this.

Tyler: You’re right, that was too conventional for BioShock. That was an avoidable error—Wolfenstein 3D wouldn’t have worked if it built to not a fight with mecha Hitler, but BioShock? BioShock should have ignored tradition. That doesn’t mean design traditions are universally bad or lazy, though. They give us historical learning to draw from, and that’s valuable.

Iterating on a design only leads to better versions of that design—not in every case, but over time. We’ll only get more and more amazing boss fights, and I’m happy to allow for some failures.

Evan: But designers aren’t iterating, they’re regurgitating. For the most part, bosses are still being implemented in the same form they were 10 and 20 years ago. What would you cite as an example of a great modern boss?

Tyler: Dark Souls, all of them. Sorry, is that game too “antique” for you?

Evan: Actually I’m glad you bring it up, because Dark Souls demonstrates what I’m talking about. The fun I had fighting its bosses relied on difficulty more than interesting design. Dark Souls is saying: “You’re fragile, so let’s make you fight things that have a bunch more HP and do more damage than you. Boss: DESIGNED!”

I don’t find that totally unappealing, but it’s mechanically mundane: pattern recognition, timing, and fighting an enemy with an enormous hit point bar isn’t tried-and-true–it’s overdone. That template originated in the 2D arcade games of the ‘80s and grew ubiquitous through the console games of the ‘90s. Do we really want games that are just a series of homages to the techniques of the past, or do we want new ideas and new experiences?

Tyler: We want both! And sometimes we want a combination. We can want whatever we want. Alright, that last one isn’t a very good argument, but how about this: it’s true that the best examples of boss fights come from arcade-style games and Japanese console series, making a “modern” PC-centric argument more difficult, but even Valve draws from that collective design learning. I thought Portal and Portal 2 climaxed just fine, and those are plenty modern.

Evan: I remember enjoying the ending of both games, but I think I was enjoying the narrative execution more than what I was being asked to do with my mouse and keyboard. Glados and Wheatley are both entertainingly written, and both Portals incorporated original, lyrical songs that provided as a surprising payoff for all your hours of brain work. But as an activity, as a test, I’m not sure if I’d call Portal and Portal 2’s bosses stimulating.

How to beat the end of Portal 2:

Stand behind a pipe as Wheatley fires a bomb at you. This will break open the Incredibly Obvious White Gel Tube.

Put a portal in front of you, and put a portal on a surface that faces where Wheatley’s shields aren’t. Stand there.

While Wheatley is stunned (because it wouldn’t be a boss if they didn’t have a “paralyzed” state), retrieve the cores and then just like, walk up to him.

Repeat.

It does a lot of the work for you–you don’t even have to consider where to place the gel, which was something Portal 2 taught you how to do over and over. It was a narrative success, but if we’re judging bosses by their test-like traits, I’d say it was a pretty easy exam.

Tyler: You’re right, boss battles tend to be exercises in pattern recognition and repetition. They require a binary win/lose state, and winning in one shot would be a bit anticlimactic, so you wear them down in stages. But what about Half-Life 2: Episode 2? That wasn’t a standard pattern-based test, it was a whole level. Conceptually, is that still a “boss?”

Wait. No. I’m unplugging my keyboard and walking away before I turn this into a semantic argument about “what is and isn’t a boss.” I’ll plug it back in after I’ve sat in the corner thinking about what I’ve done.

Evan: Yeah, I agree that it’s pointless to argue whether Half-Life 2: Episode 2’s incredible sawmill/Strider showdown is or isn’t a boss. Mostly I’m interested in encouraging designers to throw out the notion that bosses or “tests” or endings require something like a binary win/lose state, or that they have to replicate something players already understand. I like that Left 4 Dead’s crescendo events make it possible to win and lose simultaneously–you or a teammate might’ve died, but if one person completes the finale it’s considered a success.

Mainly, I don’t want any more Human Revolutions. It was a legitimate tragedy that the reboot of one of the defining, agency-driven games of our time reverted to “let’s put the player in the room with a guy that they stun and then shoot until they kill him.”

Tyler: You’re right again, but I don’t agree with a universal conclusion. Yes, “shoot until they die” is out of place there (and no fair using Human Revolution, which had bad boss fights for many reasons), but even so, I want to face the villain, and sometimes I really just want to win the fight. The hero’s journey, and all that! There’s a place for challenging the idea of binary win/lose states, as in L4D, but there’s also a place where John McClane shoots the bad guy, and it’s a place I’m not done visiting.

I don’t want to miss that confrontation because we’re just too sophisticated for traditional boss fights. True, there are better ways to handle that confrontation, and that’s the experimentation I want to see.

Evan: “The hero’s journey, and all that” is exactly what I want more designers to deviate from. Not to derail our discussion about bosses, but I’m sick of being everyone’s savior.

Now that i think of it, Far Cry 3 represents one of the recent attempts at iteration on boss design. It’s an open-world game with maybe last year’s best villain, but Ubisoft’s solution for bringing you face to face with Vaas and other big bads was throwing you into these frustrating, (and I hate to use it like it’s inherently a bad word, but) linear, drugged-out hallucination sequences. Why did they do that? Because they wanted the player to have this prolonged encounter with the villain, and a dream sequence creates this context where they can bend the rules and allow the player to shoot the villain a whole bunch of times before they die.

Tyler: You sure have a lot of examples of bad boss fights, but they don’t add up to a rule—and at least Far Cry 3 tried to justify its boss confrontations a bit differently, even if it didn’t succeed.

And on your first point, sure, things can get really interesting when we deviate from archetypal hero narratives. What if I’m just a person in DayZ, on an island with zombies, what do I do? Fascinating, and I can’t wait for more. But why can’t we have both? We don’t have to stop saving the world to also find out what happens when we can’t save the world, or when the final boss is actually Jonathan Blow’s internal emotional struggle.

Evan: It sounds like we’re approaching something that resembles consensus. I think we’re both interested in boss encounters or “difficult trials” that are built on new ideas. I guess part of my criticism stems from the idea that Western game design has won out over Japanese game design over the past 10 or 15 years, and that bosses represent a dated trope that was perpetuated a lot by Japanese games.

I’m especially frustrated when well-funded projects, staffed by dozens of talented people, rely on templates like locking you in a room and throwing a single, durable enemy at you.

Tyler: Have you played Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater? I know, another Japanese console example, but I think The End is a brilliant modern boss fight—it’s a sniper battle, a long back-and-forth which can be won with a kill or non-lethal takedown. That’s the kind of boss fight experimentation we need more of in PC games. We don’t need to do away with them altogether.

Evan: I’m a closet Metal Gear Solid fan, so I’m not going to fight you on this one–The End works for the same reasons HL2: Ep. 2 does–Konami built a whole, intricate level around that character, imbued him with some unpredictable behaviors, and the result was this interestingly-paced jungle hunt that didn’t simply have one solution, yeah. A lot of MGS’ bosses do rely on some tropey pattern-recognition stuff, but he’s one of the best examples of combining “Japanese difficulty” and Western sensibilities. There’s a lot of that in what Kojima does.

Tyler: Yeah, we’re at least within sight of each other now (nice hat, by the way). Neither of us mind having that big confrontation, or even sometimes sticking to narrative tropes, we just want cleverer approaches. That is, we don’t want designers to force traditional boss fights into otherwise non-traditional games. We want them to design climactic experiences that make sense, and “dodge, shoot, dodge, shoot” can be fun, but it only works in games wholly designed in that arcade style. When you force it into something like BioShock or Deus Ex, it’s a mechanical and narrative let down.（source：pcgamer）